Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CATEGORY
Content
Accuracy
Ideas
20%
The content contains at
least the required amount
of accurate facts/supporting
evidence about the topic.
Ideas were expressed in a
clear and organized fashion.
It was easy to figure out
what the author was trying
to communicate.
15%
The content is missing
one accurate
fact/supporting evidence
about the topic.
Ideas were expressed in a
pretty clear manner, but
the organization could
have been better.
10%
The content is missing two
accurate facts/supporting
evidence about the topic.
Adding
Personality
(Voice)
Length
Capitalization,
grammar,
spelling,
punctuation
5%
The content contains no
accurate facts/supporting
evidence about the topic.
20%
All required facts are present
and accurate.
15%
One required fact is missing
or inaccurate.
10%
Two required facts are
missing or inaccurate.
5%
More than two required fact
is missing or inaccurate.
Required
Elements
Graphics -
Relevance
Graphics -
Originality
Mechanics
Capitalization, punctuation,
and grammar are correct
throughout the poster.
EDUCATION FUNDING INEQUALITY ARTICLE
Districts serving low-income students and students of color receive far less funding than those serving white
and more affluent students. And despite widespread attention to inequitable funding formulas and courts that
have declared them unlawful for shortchanging school districts serving large percentages of low-income
students too many states continue this unfair practice, according to a new state-by-state report and online
data tool released today by The Education Trust.
The report, Funding Gaps 2015, finds that U.S. school districts serving the largest populations of low-income
students receive roughly $1,200, or 10 percent, less per student in state and local funding than the lowest
poverty districts. These gaps add up. For a middle school with 500 students, a gap of $1,200 per student means
a shortage of $600,000 per year. For a 1,000-student high school, it means a whopping $1.2 million per year in
missing resources.
Our data show that the students needing the most supports are given the least, said Natasha Ushomirsky,
K-12 senior data and policy analyst and co-author of the report. As conversations on how to improve
achievement for our nations youth, particularly those who start school academically behind, are hotly debated
in statehouses across the nation, closing long-standing funding gaps must be addressed. While money isnt the
only thing that matters for student success, it most certainly matters. Districts with more resources can, for
example, use those funds to attract stronger teachers and principals and to offer students more academic
support.
Ed Trust analyzed the most up-to-date national data sources available to examine the state of funding equity
across the U.S. and within each state. The report looks at revenues from state and local sources only, excluding
federal funds since those dollars are intended and targeted to provide supplemental services to
traditionally underserved groups. This report focuses on how states allocate the resources that originate from
their coffers.
The analysis shows great variation among states in terms of their funding patterns. Illinois, with the largest
funding gap in the nation, stands out for its unfairness. The highest poverty districts in the state get nearly 20
percent less per student than the lowest poverty districts. Following Illinois with the largest funding gaps are
New York (with a 10 percent gap), Pennsylvania (8 percent), Texas (7 percent), Maryland (7 percent) and
Michigan (6 percent).
Yet, there are many states that defy these patterns and show inequities are not inevitable. In Ohio and
Minnesota, for example, the highest poverty districts receive about 22 percent more state and local dollars per
student than their lowest poverty counterparts. Other states where low-income districts get substantially more
dollars include Delaware, South Dakota, Indiana, and Tennessee.
These figures look at whether the funding that high- and low-poverty districts receive is equal, failing to take
into account that it costs more to educate a student in poverty than a student not in poverty. When we adjust for
the added costs of educating low-income students and ask whether funding is equitable, the trends look far
worse. Nationally, the funding gap between the highest and lowest poverty districts grows to $2,200 per student,
or 18 percent. Moreover, the number of states that provide high poverty districts with substantially less funding
grows from 6 to 22.
Importantly, inequities in funding dont only occur based on poverty. In fact, Ed Trust analysis finds inequities
for districts serving the largest populations of African American, Latino, or Native students to be more
prevalent, and more substantial, than those based on poverty. Nationally, districts serving the most students of
color receive about $2,000, or 15 percent, less per student than districts serving the fewest. And while in 14
states districts that serve the most students of color receive substantially more money, in 18 states, they receive
substantially less.
If this nation is truly to live up to its promise of being the land of equal opportunity, states must take a hard
look at their funding formulas and ask themselves, Are we giving all students the resources they need to reach
their full potential? The answer is no in far too many states, said Ushomirsky. The good news is that
closing funding gaps is possible. There are many states that are paving the way.